Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"

[Ayten Aydin <***>]

Dear John M,
As my reading proceeds I feel the same way you do. But one thing I learn
from it where the stage of knowledge in a variety of scientific or
semi-scientific fields in the eyes of several well known persons, not nmuch
what they predict. In effect I started with Ian Stewart and noticed that he
sees a need to develop a new mathematics to deal with the requirements of
the new science etc. None makes a fixed map in my mind to expect their
anticipations to be realized. I would bve the last person to predict even
the next day if not a deadline to pay a bill. In effect some of the
predictions made are contradictory. Even that is usefull to understand their
shooting points and direction of their arrows/targets.
A few citations, among many, from Ian Stewart predictions (which also means
to me what is not yet uncovered so far to his knowledge) are below for your
information in case you care to read as I remember yo do not like to read
long write-ups:

 - The mostcelebrated unsolved problem at this moment is the Riemann
hypothesis. This is a rather technical question in complex analysis whose
conjectured answer would shed a great deal of light on prime numbers,
algebraic number theory, algebraic geometry, even dynamics. In recent years,
intriguing connections have emerged with quantum physics. I will stick my
neck out and predict that by 2050 the Riemann hypothesis will have been
proved -the expected answer will turn out to be right- and that links to
physics will play a major role in the proof.....the final route to a
solution will be based not on  the current links to physics but on a
connection not yet envisaged.

- The others are the Poincare` conjecture, a topological characterization of
the three- dimensional sphere; the Hodge conjecture and the Birch/
Swinnerton- Dyer conjecture in algebraic geometry; the existence (or not0 of
solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations of viscous fluid dynamics; and a
pfoof of the 'mass gap hypothesis' in quantum field theory;

- More exotic sciences will be tied into mathematics. One will be quantm
physics, already highly mathematical.  Today, surprising new links between
quantum field theories, geometry, topology, and algebra are beginning to be
uncovered. Many more will follow.

-Very quickly every area of mathematics was 'complexified'. Quantization
will be the 21st century version of complexification; we will be doing
quantum algebra, quantum topology, quantum number theory;

-Far more influential, and far more radical, will be the mathematics
inspired by the biosciences: biomathematics. ....there are huge gaps in our
understanding of the link between genes and organisms. ... the sequenced
genome tells us nothing about how to manage our ecosystems, like coral
reefs, rain forests...

- A straw in the wind in this direction is the rapid growth of the science
of complex systems: that is, systems formed by large numbers of relatively
simple components that interact in simple ways.....Out of it come high-level
patterns, 'emergent phenomena'. Out of the connectivity of human brain cells
comes conscious awareness. By 2050 we may have a vigourous mathematical
theory of emergent phenomena and high-level dynamics of complex systems.

- Mathematics will help us to understand the patterns of the universe in
terms of the patterns themselves and not just in terms of billions of
dancing digits out of which the patterns emerge like some kind of miracle.

While I know that this is too long a write-up to your taste,   I could not
stop myself sharing these predictions with you, which also reflect our
present situation in many respects, and their reading gives me a pleasant
vibration.

I 'll wait for your reflections - hopefully not reactions only, to further
my own thinking and linking with all the rest in these pretty intricate
matters.

My best,
Ayten



----- Original Message -----
From: "John M" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 5:17 AM
Subject: Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"


> Dear Ayten,
> in your very comprehensive and professional post you wrote:
> >>...
> >> At present I am reading a book entitled " The Next Fifty Years: Science
> in
> >> the First Half of the Twenty-First Century", edited by John Brockman,
> >> Vintage Books 2002. Among the articles (25) the ones by Ian stewart on
> The  Mathematics of 2050; ...<<
>
> I wish you a good time to reading this book. I was squeezed by commi party
> journalists in the 50s in Hungary to put together something about the
future
> of scientific endeavor for them for - say - the next 50 years and my
answer
> was:
> I can tell about yesterday, fantasize about today, but tomorrow is
unscience
> fiction.
> NOBODY could predict 50 years ago the novelties we experience now. It is
not
> a developmental route of a well planned activity, the new ideas,
novelties,
> even the mistakes and their utilization just occur, unexpectedly both in
> time and in topics.
> All we can talk about is a prediction what could we do better in those
> topics which ARE HERE already. Static prediction of the present.
> Even with the knowledge of RR's all natural maximum models and the
> possibilities what unlimited network of networks activate in all of them
> back and forth (I mean: with the impossible knowledge base) could we
> (perhaps) predict and precompose the NEW.
>
> I am not talking about technical gadgets, not GM or other genetic ideas,
> nor Star Wars, not even the internet or VR, I am talking about the ways we
> think. Not only this narrow tribe here on the list, but more or less
> similarly "infected" (with wholistic complexity) ones surface on wider
> lists, ensembles, - and in select literature as well. The 'thinking' part
of
> mankind thinks differently today from a similar cut 50 years ago. Which
was
> different from the image another 100 years earlier. Tradition, family,
> society, entertainment, even "religious" thought changes in unpredictable
> fashion, exponentially I could say.
>
> This is also an aspect of Rosennean thinking. No static model is valid.
> The relations are not definable, because by the time you write it down
they
> changed. The 'everlasting' rules change in weeks. Science changes.
> Change into what? nobody with today's mind can foresee that.
>
> Ayten, enjoy the book. If Ian Stewart is involved, it can only be good.
>
> John M
>
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: "Ayten Aydin" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 4:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"
>
> not copied
>
>